Kinderhook And Critics

[Alf O'Mega]

Are you arguing that all Clayton's writings regarding things Joseph Smith said ought to be looked upon as canonical based on the inclusion in the canon of certain excerpts, otherwise we ought to have no faith in the selections that have been included?

Nope. I'm arguing that statements attributed by Clayton directly to Joseph Smith are likely to be basically reliable, even in instances where they are uncorroborated or apologetically inconvenient. Those to whom the canon is important may have enhanced reasons to regard him as a reliable witness, however.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nope. I'm arguing that statements attributed by Clayton directly to Joseph Smith are likely to be basically reliable, even in instances where they are uncorroborated or apologetically inconvenient. Those to whom the canon is important may have enhanced reasons to regard him as a reliable witness, however.

How do you corroborate Clayton's words with John Taylor's (regarding KhP)?

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope. I'm arguing that statements attributed by Clayton directly to Joseph Smith are likely to be basically reliable, even in instances where they are uncorroborated or apologetically inconvenient. Those to whom the canon is important may have enhanced reasons to regard him as a reliable witness, however.

The decision about what material to include in the scriptural canon is, in and of itself, a matter of prophecy and revelation. Presumably, therefore, D&C 131 was included because it was deemed -- under inspiration -- to be canon-worthy. Clayton's remark about the Kinderhook Plates obviously was not so deemed.

The notion that someone's written account is reliable merely because something else he wrote ended up in the canon is absurd on its face.

[Alf O'Mega]

How do you corroborate Clayton's words with John Taylor's (regarding KhP)?

What do you mean? Do you see some contradiction between Clayton's report and Taylor's editorial?

Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentlemen that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a fac similie of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning with them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it (Times and Seasons 4:12 [May 1, 1843], 186).

[Alf O'Mega]

The notion that someone's written account is reliable merely because something else he wrote ended up in the canon is absurd on its face.

If you ever catch somebody making that argument, be sure you take him out and duck him in the horse pond!

[Scott Lloyd]

If you ever catch somebody making that argument, be sure you take him out and duck him in the horse pond!

[wenglund]

Only in the trivial sense that all language is inherently ambiguous. Clayton's report of what "Prest. J . . . says" is no more ambiguous than his report later that month:

I think the use of the phrase "we went to hear.." renders the quote somewhat less ambiguous than Clayton's quote about the "partial translation" (since it contained no "we" language that implies immediate proximity at the time of the "partial translation"), but I don't see either as rendered "not ambiguous". There is nothing within the "Methodist lecture" quote, itself, which negates the possibility or plausibility that Clayton may have heard Joseph's remarks second hand. For all we know, Clayton could have taken a bathroom break right after the Methodist preacher finished his remarks and during the quoted portion of Joseph's remarks, and learned of what was said by Joseph from one of the Johnsons upon returning. We just don't know for certain one way or the other--and hence the ambiguity.

Granted, my inclination is to read the statement as firsthand. But, that is not because the statement is unambiguous--since I believe it is somewhat ambiguous. Rather, it is because to me it is the strongest inductive explanation.

And, I am not opposed to viewing Clayton's "partial translation" statement as also firsthand, though I think it more ambiguous, and less strong an inductive case, and thus more open to reasonable dispute. That's all--say what we each will, emphatically or otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alf writes:

If this doctrine were uncomfortable for modern Mormons, it would be a relatively simple matter to dismiss Clayton's account or claim that his attribution of the doctrine was "ambiguous." But it isn't, and neither is Clayton's Kinderhook entry. He was with Joseph, he quotes Joseph, and the content of his account is imprecisely but obviously echoed by Pratt's letter.

It's not really that uncomfortable. The problem here is that this is the entire basis for an argument that Joseph translated the Kinderhook plates. There isn't anything else. And it seems to me to be quite suspect, since we would also need to assume that Joseph Smith told Clayton about several other things in connection to the plates that are also quite wrong (the location where they were found, the skeleton, etc.) And you don't get to just separate the one from the others. Why is it, that you critics want to repeat ad nausem the translation part, but always want to dismiss the rest of it? You want to suggest that the one element which we can't really verify in Clayton's journal entry is the one element which is actually factually accurate? (When the rest of it really isn't). You want to suggest that this is of course motivated by a bias which we believing LDS have, but of course the critics (who are often the ones making the assertions here) aren't motivated by bias at all?

I mean, if we actually had the translation, or a quote from it ... but we don't. And there wasn't one that was made (at least not one that was publicly known). Shoot, it wasn't until Fugate learned that Joseph had made a translation (by reading the DHC account) that he made his public statement - suggesting that it was only after he had encountered the DHC that he thought (for the first time) that Joseph had made a translation of the faked plates - and then he could reveal the hoax. And his account suggests that Joseph was planning on translating them until they had been authenticated ... There are plenty of reasons to use as the basis for suggesting that a translation was never made.

All the critics can do is talk in circles. Clayton was trustworthy, he was a confidant of Joseph's, he was with Joseph at some point during the day that he made the journal entry. Yes, all of this doesn't help answer the ambiguity. And so you want to hang the entire argument - not on what the journal actually says, but, as Bradley suggests, on a predetermined reading of an ambiguous statement. Now, if you had something else to go on, wonderful. But you don't. And no amount of window dressing is going to make this appear any differently.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What do you mean? Do you see some contradiction between Clayton's report and Taylor's editorial?

Do you not?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Benjamin: that's essentially the main thrust of my position as well.

[Alf O'Mega]

The problem here is that this is the entire basis for an argument that Joseph translated the Kinderhook plates. There isn't anything else. And it seems to me to be quite suspect, since we would also need to assume that Joseph Smith told Clayton about several other things in connection to the plates that are also quite wrong (the location where they were found, the skeleton, etc.)

Why do we need to assume that? Clayton attributes the information about the contents of the plates to "Prest. J". He does not attribute the other information to him. The plates got to Joseph's house by some means, and it is likely that the account of their discovery came by the same means.

And you don't get to just separate the one from the others. Why is it, that you critics want to repeat ad nausem the translation part, but always want to dismiss the rest of it? You want to suggest that the one element which we can't really verify in Clayton's journal entry is the one element which is actually factually accurate? (When the rest of it really isn't). You want to suggest that this is of course motivated by a bias which we believing LDS have, but of course the critics (who are often the ones making the assertions here) aren't motivated by bias at all?

I recognize that many critics (other than me!) have some bias. But I would be satisfied if Clayton's firsthand account of the translated portion of the plates was just as accurate as his secondhand report of the circumstances of their discovery. I'm not claiming some stenographic level of accuracy in his report, just that he correctly attributed a preliminary translation to Joseph Smith (probably not dictated to scribes or written down, other than by Clayton and perhaps Pratt, if he was there). The details of what Joseph said may well be a little garbled. But that doesn't affect Clayton's basic reliability.

I mean, if we actually had the translation, or a quote from it ... but we don't.

We do. Clayton reported it.

And there wasn't one that was made (at least not one that was publicly known).

Clayton provides evidence that there was one, although it sounds like a lot less than you appear to expect.

Shoot, it wasn't until Fugate learned that Joseph had made a translation (by reading the DHC account) that he made his public statement - suggesting that it was only after he had encountered the DHC that he thought (for the first time) that Joseph had made a translation of the faked plates - and then he could reveal the hoax. And his account suggests that Joseph was planning on translating them until they had been authenticated ... There are plenty of reasons to use as the basis for suggesting that a translation was never made.

But this doesn't exclude the preliminary summary that Clayton reports.

All the critics can do is talk in circles. Clayton was trustworthy, he was a confidant of Joseph's, he was with Joseph at some point during the day that he made the journal entry. Yes, all of this doesn't help answer the ambiguity. And so you want to hang the entire argument - not on what the journal actually says, but, as Bradley suggests, on a predetermined reading of an ambiguous statement. Now, if you had something else to go on, wonderful. But you don't. And no amount of window dressing is going to make this appear any differently.

Magnifying the ambiguity of Clayton's report is entirely window dressing.

Do you not?

I do not. Show me.

[Analytics]

It's not really that uncomfortable. The problem here is that this is the entire basis for an argument that Joseph translated the Kinderhook plates. There isn't anything else. And it seems to me to be quite suspect, since we would also need to assume that Joseph Smith told Clayton about several other things in connection to the plates that are also quite wrong (the location where they were found, the skeleton, etc.) And you don't get to just separate the one from the others. Why is it, that you critics want to repeat ad nausem the translation part, but always want to dismiss the rest of it? You want to suggest that the one element which we can't really verify in Clayton's journal entry is the one element which is actually factually accurate?...

Personally, I don't dismiss the rest of it. I think Joseph probably told Clayton everything he wrote down. Just because the details are factually wrong doesn't mean Joseph didn't say it. On the other hand, it's possible that Clayton got some of the wrong info from other sources. But just because Clayton would rely upon rumor to find out what strangers had to say about the discovery of the plates doesn't mean he'd rely upon rumor to find out what his close associate had to say about them.

[skenderbeg]

I couldn't agree more.

Startling how Joseph could have had an interest in some official looking artifact, and actually tried to figure out what they said - or if they said anything at all.

I think the evidence indicates that Joseph did indeed attempt a translation of the Kinderhook plates (not only do we have Clayton, but we also have Taylor in Times and Seasons). But, given that he didnâ??t attempt to do so (or claim to do so) via revelation or of use of the seer stone, and instead sent for lexicons, methinks it was of a secular nature. He did not attempt to do so via his role as a Prophet.

Just my heretical opinion.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alf write:

Why do we need to assume that? Clayton attributes the information about the contents of the plates to "Prest. J". He does not attribute the other information to him. The plates got to Joseph's house by some means, and it is likely that the account of their discovery came by the same means.

So, you can accurately parse Clayton's journal to know that only the sentance with Prest. J. in it is attributable to Joseph Smith, and the following sentences are not? Objective reading, right?

The other side of this coin is that in this assumption, clearly there are rumors going around. And so the way that you salvage this is to make another assumption (as Analytics does in the next post):

Personally, I don't dismiss the rest of it. I think Joseph probably told Clayton everything he wrote down. Just because the details are factually wrong doesn't mean Joseph didn't say it. On the other hand, it's possible that Clayton got some of the wrong info from other sources. But just because Clayton would rely upon rumor to find out what strangers had to say about the discovery of the plates doesn't mean he'd rely upon rumor to find out what his close associate had to say about them.

And this itself is an odd combination of assertions. Clayton isn't making some kind of professional record of events. This is his personal journal. Do we have any reason to believe that he wouldn't put speculations into his personal journal? This is a rather casual remark, and there isn't any more detail on this topic in anything that Clayton wrote. So, it seems to me to be quite reasonable that someone had mentioned this to Clayton, that he notes it in his journal, and he neveer comes back to it, because of course, it ends up being nothing more than a rumor (which he may have verified with Joseph the next time he saw him). The challenge, of course, is that its all speculation, and both of you are having to go outside what the text actually says to interpret it. Back to Alf, who wrote:

I recognize that many critics (other than me!) have some bias. But I would be satisfied if Clayton's firsthand account of the translated portion of the plates was just as accurate as his secondhand report of the circumstances of their discovery. I'm not claiming some stenographic level of accuracy in his report, just that he correctly attributed a preliminary translation to Joseph Smith (probably not dictated to scribes or written down, other than by Clayton and perhaps Pratt, if he was there). The details of what Joseph said may well be a little garbled. But that doesn't affect Clayton's basic reliability.

But this isn't some kind of "report". This is a personal journal entry. And we can be quite comfortable with Clayton's reliability even if he is repeating this second hand (from the rumor mill as it were - that certainly was in existence). So, Clayton's reliability doesn't actually have any relevance in interpreting this statement. Of course, recognizing that is difficult for you, as it seems to have formed the foundation of every critics argument in this case. Clayton was "reliable" so we should interpret him in this way ... and there we go, down the slippery slope of the intentional fallacy.

Clayton provides evidence that there was one, although it sounds like a lot less than you appear to expect.

No, Clayton does NOT provide evidence that there was one. What we get from Clayton is that at the time that he wrote his journal entry, he believed that a translation had been made. Evidence of a translation via Clayton would be an actual transcript of the translation, or an unambiguous statement that he was present when Joseph translated, and so on. The issue is that Clayton is the only witness to such a translation being made by Joseph - and only through this ambiguous statement. The entire argument for a translation relies specifically on this reading of Clayton - and this isn't a very strong case - so the critic makes the most of it.

But this doesn't exclude the preliminary summary that Clayton reports.

Clayton only provides a summary IF YOU ASSUME that a translation was actually made, for which the only evidence is Clayton's ambiguous account. Its a nice circular argument. It just doesn't work very well ...

Magnifying the ambiguity of Clayton's report is entirely window dressing.

No, because the ambiguity is still there, no matter what you try to say about Clayton's reliability, and all of the other irrelevancies you try to justify your specific interpretation of Clayton's journal entry with. And they are irrelevant. Exploring the text and its ambiguity is quite relevant.

[MormonMason]

Looking forward to it!

Just letting everyone know that though I had to take some time off from looking for the letter, I still am looking for it as well as one other document discussed in another thread. It is a laborious and time-consuming process. Makes me wish I had filed it instead of throwing it in a box somewhere!

Of course, it will be in the last place I look when I get done! Is that not the way it usually is?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is that not the way it usually is?

Yes. Yes it is.

[MormonMason]

...

Are you sure that that account is from Willard...

...

I looked at the document itself. It looks like Willard's handwriting to me. Here is the entry in the account (arranged line by line as in Journal account):

May 7 Sunday 1843.

forenoon visited by several

gentlemen concerning the

plates which were dug out

of a mound near qunig

sent by Wm Smith to the office

for Hebrew Bible & Lexicon-

Mr Vickers the wire dancer

called. A.M.= Court of 1st Presidency

met and adjourned one week, 2 P.P.

President not well- counsellors acted.-

evening preaching by Elder Hyde

text Luke 21 chapter.

(MS155, box 1 folder 6, [Diary, 10 March 1843 - 14 July 1843, 181-200], 195)

The Account in this journal also has this lone entry for the first day of May:

Monday May 1, 1843

rode out. forenoon & afternoon

(ibid., 186)

The character representing the ampersand in the above could be a badly written "to" which would make the entry read "forenoon to afternoon" in the entry, but I am reasonably sure it is an ampersand. The 4 in the year 1843 is written over an original number 3 (the same kind of error occurs in the entry for May 9th). The entire rest of the page is blank with the page following starting the next day.

There are a couple things strike me about the account for May 7, 1843, and one of them is that if the plates were believed to have been written in Egyptian why would Joseph send William Smith to fetch the old Hebrew Bible and Lexicon? Curious!

[why me]

Or just ignore them completely...at least until someone else brings them up.

I have seen the kinderhook plates come up on exmormon boards. Usually, a poster posts a comment about how he or she just discovered the kinderhook plates and how this disproves JS was a prophet. Immediately the boards members surround this member and bolster her or his lack of faith with kinderhook plate innuendos. It comes up often and it will come up here. Fortunately we have some intelligent posters here who can counter the kinderhook plates and exmormon theories.

Bradley admits to the conjectural nature of the information, however.

A great deal of the exmo take on things is conjecture. Conjecture to fit their nice picture of the lds church and its past history. Exmoism lives on conjecture.

[Danite3459]

I can't speak for LoaP, but I'm not suggesting that Clayton's Kinderhook account be dismissed altogether. Rather, I am suggesting that it be left open to some reasonable question, and not be treated as though it is fact.

Given the relative derth of empirical data in relation to that event, one may logically grant as plausible and reasonable a variety of explanations from which we each may chose a preference.

For my part, and the explanation I believe best accounts for all the historical data, is that several Kinderhook residents, upon learning of all the ancient artifacts that had been circulating around the region and were generating revenues for their proprietors, decided to fabricate their own artifact with the intent of making money. The hoax was hatched and put into action. News of the Kinderhook finding was subsequently spread about the region, and generated considerable excitement.

The suggestion was soon made by several Church members in the area to take the plates to Nauvoo to see what Joseph had to say about them. This suggestion was initially declined, but several non-members (Mr. Savage and Josua Moore) were later sent with the plates to Nauvoo presumably with the hopes of somehow credibilizing the findings via Joseph, thereby increasing the chances of making money.

The plates were then circulated around Nauvoo starting on April 29th of 1843, and rumors began to abound. Joseph was briefly shown the plates on May 1st, and drawing upon his knowledge of the Egytian alphabet, and perhaps going somewhat off what he may have been told about the finding of the plates by those who brought the plates to him (Mr. Savage and Joshua Moore), pointed out several symbols on the plates and informally suggested a plausible meaning, and in that sense, he made a partial translation.

However, because the other symbols were unfamiliar to him, and perhaps of some question as to their authenticity, to the supposed disappointment of the conspirators, he declined undertaking a formal translation until the plates had been sent to experts for authentication. The plates continued to circulate around Nauvoo for several days and were then taken back to Kinderhook on the 3rd of May. Later that year they were sent to the Antiquinarian Society, where it was determined that the symbols, as a whole, on the plates did not resemble known Egyptian. The plates were then returned to Kinderhook and, not to be entirely detered from their money-making scheme, the following year the plates were put in a museum. Joseph was martyred during that time, and likely never saw the plates other than the one time on May 1st of 1843.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just a randam thought or two on this. I am as intrigued by this question as anyone and am always interested in learning more.

One observation is that the phrase in the Clayton entry, "and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth" is reminiscent of Abraham 1:21 but may also echo a passage from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers notebook (KEP1 page 12) next to the symbol of what looks like an upside down circle "Ho e oop hah -- honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh possession by birth one who reigns upon his throne univerally - possessor of heaven and earth." Did Joseph Smith offer a partial or what would be a secular translation based upon these study notes relating to the Egyptian papyri and the Book of Abraham?

Has anyone compared the Kinderhook symbols with those on the papyri? Would he have seen anything that reminded him of symbols on the papyri?

Is it possible that Clayton mistook Joseph discussing the Egyptian papyri rather than the Kinderhook plates?

Is it possible that Joseph mispoke and inadvertently referenced the Book of Abraham rather than the Kinderhook plates and that what Clayton records is this error?

I am simply asking the questions, but perhaps some of these things deserve closer examination.

Personally, when obvious clear cut answers are not available, I find it is best to offer various possibilties and allow others to decide.

My two cents

Matt

[cdowis]

Analytics sez: "Maybe some of his fantastic stories were real. Maybe he didnâ??t mean for them to be taken seriously. Maybe he was just doing it for fun or to say interesting things. Iâ??m sure if I was with him whenever he told a story, I would have gotten a kick out of it. No harm done. Iâ??m totally willing to attribute to him the purest of motives for making up stories. But to deny the fact that he made up stories is to deny reality. He was a storyteller."

I haven't read thru the thread, but let's look at the possibility that he was correct. Considering that this was a throwoff comment with no other substantiation, it may indeed have been a joke. JS was known to make such comments -- the Ten lost tribes were on the North Star, the "drunk prophet" joke he and BY played, possibly the Quakers on the moon.

He was indeed known to make a joke and this was one of them.

[Alf O'Mega]

So, you can accurately parse Clayton's journal to know that only the sentance with Prest. J. in it is attributable to Joseph Smith, and the following sentences are not?

No, I can accurately parse Clayton's journal to know that the sentence with "Prest J." in it is attributed to Joseph Smith by Clayton and the other sentences are not. Take another look:

I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about 6 feet from the surface of the earth which was 9 foot high. The plates were on the breast of the skeleton. This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth (James B. Allen, Trials of Discipleship: The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987], 117).

So no, I don't see how I'm forced to assume anything about the source of the rest of the information he reports. That may well be from Joseph, or the rumor mill, or whatever. But the translation of the contents of the plates is attributed to Joseph Smith. Unambiguously. Citing the fact that there were rumors about the plates does not dilute the value of this particular firsthand witness. The rumors are a red herring. Clayton attributes the translation to Joseph Smith.

But this isn't some kind of "report". This is a personal journal entry.

That's a strange quibble. Of course it's a report, even if Clayton didn't have any future audience in mind.

No, Clayton does NOT provide evidence that there was [a translation]. What we get from Clayton is that at the time that he wrote his journal entry, he believed that a translation had been made.

And that's not evidence?

Evidence of a translation via Clayton would be an actual transcript of the translation, or an unambiguous statement that he was present when Joseph translated, and so on.

That would be stronger evidence, but that's not what we have. We have Clayton's personal report (yeah, I said it!) of what Joseph translated. Maybe it's a summary, maybe it's a complete transcript, but either way it's evidence that there was a translation by Joseph Smith of the Kinderhook plates.

[LifeOnaPlate]

[...]but either way it's evidence that there was a translation by Joseph Smith of the Kinderhook plates.

Is it proof?

[cdowis]

Clayton does NOT provide evidence that there was [a translation]. What we get from Clayton is that at the time that he wrote his journal entry, he believed that a translation had been made.

And that's not evidence?

Yep, it is evidence, but evidence of what?

1. He personally witnessed the translation

2. JS told him that he had translated the plates

3. JS told this to someone else, and Clayton overheard the conversation.

4. Somebody told Clayton about the translation.

5. Clayton came to this conclusion based on disparate and various sources of information.

Which is it?

[wenglund]

So as to test the clarity/ambiguity of what Clayton has written regarding May 1st, 1843 (the presumed date of the alleged "partial translation"), let's quote what he wrote and construct a time-line of things that may be clear and things that may be ambiguous.

Here are the relevant exerpts from a chronological compilation assembled by Robert Fillerup

1 May 1843, Monday

Nauvoo 2

May 1st. A.M at the Temple. at 10. m J to L.W. P.M at prest. Josephs

... I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County ...

Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of

the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham

through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his

kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth

Allen 2, p. 117

``I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some

persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about 6

feet from the surface of the earth which was 9 foot high. [At this

point there is a tracing of a plate in the journal.] The plates were

on the breast of the skeleton. This diagram shows the size of the

plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with

ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side

of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain

the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a

descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that

he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.''

Allen 1, p.44

/Clayton/ preformed a marriage ceremony between Joseph Smith and Lucy

Walker

Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage 31

May 1st, (1843) A.M. At the Temple. At 10 married Joseph to Lucy

Walker. P.M. at Prest. Joseph's; he has gone out with Woodworth.

Affidavit, p. 225

On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by

marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own

residence. During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other

wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily

Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These

all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according

to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of

some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated

them very kindly.

Letter, p. 78

I had the honor to seal one woman /Lucy Walker Smith/ to Joseph under

his direction.

Timeline:

Early morning (prior to 10am). We know for a fact that Clayton was at the temple. However, where Joseph may have been during that time, is ambiguous. In other words, we do not know if Clayton or Joseph were even together during this segment of the day, let alone whether they talked about the Kinderhook plates.

10am to ?. We know for a fact that during this segment of the day both Clayton and Joseph were at Joseph's house, and that they were together (Clayton officiated in the sealing between Joseph and Lucy Walker). It is ambiguous whether Clayton and Joseph talked during the sealing or shortly thereafter about the Kinderhook plates.

? to pm It is ambiguous where Clayton was during this time--though given Clayton's explicit mention of being at Joseph's home at 10am and again in the pm, it is likely that he may have left Joseph's residence during the interim. It is also ambiguous where Joseph was during this time--though according to Joseph's journal (see MM's post above) Joseph was out during the forenoon and afternoon riding with (Flora?) Woodworth, and thus would not have been together with Clayton, let alone talking with him about the Kinderhook plates.

All that is clear is that at some ambiguous time and at some ambiguous location, and in some ambiguous person's possession, Clayton saw the six Kinderhook plates and drew a diagram of one of them.

And, it is ambiguous when Clayton heard the version he gave of the finding of the plates. It is ambiguous where Clayton heard about the finding of the plates. It is ambiguous who told Clayton about the finding of the plates.

pm to ? We know for a fact that Clayton was at Joseph's residence during a portion of this time. However, it is ambiguous where Joseph was during this time, and thus it is ambiguous whether Clayton and Joseph were even together, let alone whether they discussed the Kinderhook plates or not.

It is ambiguous when Clayton learned of Joseph's alleged partial translation of the plates. It is ambiguous where Clayton learned of the partial translation. It is ambiguous from whom Clayton learned of the partial translation. And it is even ambiguous when and where the alleged "partial translation" took place.

I will leave each to decide for yourselves, based on this time-line, whether the Clayton accounts are ambiguous or not regarding the issue in dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alf O'Mega]

Is it proof?

No. Did I claim proof? I have said from the beginning that I "accept the likely veracity" of Clayton's account. Those who don't should have better reasons than the eisegetic uncertainty they inject into Clayton's report.